Developing an Online Admission Review System Rich Rutty Software Developer/Analyst

1. Developing an Online Admission Review System Rich Rutty Software Developer/Analyst

2. Enrollment and admissions Summer / Fall 2010 Enrollment: 38,420 Undergraduate 11,582 Graduate 1,193 Law 51,195 Total 2010 Admissions: 7,275 First-Time Freshmen (Summer / Fall) 2,400 Undergraduate Transfer (Fall only) 3,300 New Graduate (Summer / Fall)

3. Freshman admissions Fall 2010 Freshman Admission Statistics: 31,022 Applied 14,583 Admitted 7,275 Enrolled • Comprehensive application and document review for those not automatically admitted (via Texas House Bill 588 - “Top 10% Rule”) • Applicants eligible for certain scholarships also get reviewed. 18,964 Freshman applicants scored • Honors program applicants are not necessarily “scored,” but reviewed. 3,226 Honors applications completed • Schools of Architecture and Fine Arts also review applicant files. ~600 More freshman applicants reviewed

4. Personnel and timelines Fall 2010 Freshman Reviewer Roles: 23 Full file reviewers, 825 applicants per reviewer 27 Essay readers, 702 applicants per reader 106 Viewers • Most of the reviewers and readers worked off-campus. Fall 2010 Freshman Review Deadlines: 12/15/2009 Application deadline 02/15/2010 Review deadline

5. What were we doing? Entering review scores Printing files Reviewing paper files Mailing files to Admission Office Mailing files to reviewers

6. How much paper was used? Printouts for Fall 2009 Freshman review used about 90 boxes of paper. 90 boxes → stack of paper 150 feet high

7. What we could do... Create electronic files Review files online Reviewer enters scores Distribute to reviewer inboxes

8. What we could do... Create electronic files Review files online Reviewer enters scores Distribute to reviewer inboxes

9. What we could do... Create electronic files Review files online Reviewer enters scores Distribute to reviewer inboxes

10. What we can do with paper • Read files almost anywhere we please. (portable) • Scribble notes about the applicant directly on paper. • Stacks of files give a sense of how much work has been accomplished and how much work is left to do. (visual of work status)

11. What can be better than paper? • Reviewers can score files immediately. • Each reviewer can customize the order in which the documents are viewed. • The pending files can be easily prioritized by date of application materials completed. • Distribution of files is automatic. • Easier to track files assigned to reviewers. • Reviewers can still choose to print their files.

12. Inspiration for a document reader

13. Perspiration for a document reader • Applicant files abound. • Applicants may or may not have certain documents. • Some documents are imaged, some are separate web pages, others are raw text. • Different reviewer roles should only be able to view certain document types. • Documents must be secure.

14. What we have done • Sufficient servers to handle traffic. • Try to keep document size small. • Generate raw text when feasible: applications, essays • Try to limit database access and updates. • Retrieve only the documents necessary for review. • Eliminate “notes.” Update scores only. • Make online document review as efficient as possible. • Emphasize the document in the viewer. • Score entry should be quick and easy. • Inbox management should be automatic.

15. First attempt at a document viewer

16. First attempt at a document viewer

17. First attempt at a document viewer

18. Better document viewer

19. Build document list for each applicant • Based upon role, retrieve only the documents allowed to be viewed for the role.

20. Documents for Freshman PAI Reviewer Document formats: E = electronic H = HTML I = imaged

21. Document Customization Sort inbox in date order (reviewers and essay readers) or name order (viewers). Sort document families within a file.

22. Document formats • Electronic – comprises raw text which was originally designed for our printing process • HTML – a structured web page to display information • Imaged – scanned documents retrieved by our image servers • We added another web page to display electronic documents (electronic → HTML). The system now only needs to handle HTML and imaged documents. • HTML documents are displayed within the viewer (iframe). • Imaged documents are embedded into the viewer (object).

23. Security considerations • Authentication occurs with every page view. • Roles limit which applicants and which documents can be viewed. • Roles also limit who can submit review scores. • Login through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is required if accessed off-campus. • Each link to an imaged document can only be used once. • Audit all input and encode (almost) all output. • Scripts (client and server) are used to prevent many web-based attacks.

24. Inbox for Freshman PAI Reviewer

25. Manager functions - Authorization

26. Manager functions – Score report

27. Manager functions – Inbox spoofing

28. Questions?

29. Acknowledgements • Marilyn Galvan – Sr. Systems Analyst • Brent Heustess – Sr. Systems Analyst • Michael Caldwell – Assistant Director – Admissions • Susan Kearns – Associate Director – Admissions • Steve Rung – Assistant Director – SIS • Michael Orr – Associate Director – Admissions • Angela Svoboda – Director - SIS

30. Contact: Rich Rutty – rrutty@austin.utexas.edu